Alain de Botton, writerDerrida defies summary. He investigates the different ways in which attempts to simplify and summarise ideas are, in fact, a betrayal of the true complexity of things. He stands, rather like Wittgenstein or perhaps Freud, as an example of a thinker who made it his business to tell us that things are more complicated than we trust them to be.

Julie Burchill, writerI didn't know much about him. He was French, which to me says it all. Leave well alone! I did laugh, though, when I saw the news on AOL. It said: "Cancer claims snowy-haired philosopher."

AC Grayling, philosopherDerrida says that any text has multiple meanings and the great majority of those meanings won't be apparent even to the author of them. So a deconstruction of the text will show the variety and levels of meanings, some of which will be inconsistent with each other.

Cristina Odone, deputy editor of the New StatesmanWords are not what you think they are. That's about as much as I've understood.

Richard Dawkins, scientistMy thoughts are contained in my book, A Devil's Chaplain, published by Weidenfeld, in the chapter called "Postmodernism disrobed".

Colin McCabe, professor of English at Exeter UniversityDerrida's philosophy derives from the fact that being manifests itself through difference. His writing largely consists of carefully unpicking all attempts to deny this differentiation. Most importantly, he deconstructed that philosophical tradition which appealed to speech as a source of unmediated being.

Michael Holroyd, writer and biographerCan I pass on that? Not my sort of thing I'm afraid.

Denis MacShane, minister for EuropeThe core of Derrida's thinking is that every text contains multiple meanings. To read is neither to know nor to understand, but to begin a process of exploration that is essential to comprehend oneself and society. This is, however, the sort of pretentious bullshit language a minister for Europe can only use when speaking French.

Paul Bailey, novelistDeconstructionism and all that - I haven't a clue. I read the obituary in the Guardian but I couldn't make much of it. There are times when you think you're an intellectual and there are times when you think you're not. I know he's important, but I'm not sure why.

Michael Billington, Guardian theatre criticHe's synonymous with certain key words such as structuralism and deconstruction. What strikes me is, when applied to literature, how close this is to what I was brought up to call Practical Criticism of the IA Richards school - the assumption that understanding literature is enhanced by breaking it down into its constituent parts and analysing these with scientific thoroughness.

Roger Scruton, philosopher He's difficult to summarise because it's nonsense. He argues that the meaning of a sign is never revealed in the sign but deferred indefinitely, and that a sign only means something by virtue of its difference from something else. For Derrida, there is no such thing as meaning - it always eludes us and therefore anything goes.

Julian Baggini, editor of The Philosophers' MagazineBritish-trained philosophers like myself don't know much about Derrida, though that doesn't stop some of them dismissing him. I don't dismiss him, but nor do I know enough to be able to sum him up.

Amy Ziering Kofman, director of the film DerridaDerrida has been mischaracterised - he's not nihilistic or relativistic. He doesn't say, "Everything is equal and you can do what you want." Because there is no God or higher power, you have to take responsibility yourself. There is no absolute truth, so you have to agree a course of action. His thinking is based on a strict code of ethics.

JG Ballard, novelist Do I even partly understand him? If I'm honest, not really. For 20 years, I've been floating around Derrida like a space capsule whose landing instructions have got lost, and I have never really made contact. Only professional philosophers and Eng Lit deconstructionists can really explain him.

David Lodge, novelistAccording to Derrida, the foundations of traditional philosophy are illusory. We inhabit "a world of signs without fault, without truth and without origin". The very nature of language undermines the claim of any text or utterance to have a determinate meaning, and licenses the reader to produce his/her own interpretation of it by an activity of "semantic freeplay".

Iain Loe, research and information manager, Campaign for Real AleI'm sorry, he's passed me by. I did a bit of philosophy at university but never came across him. I fear it's a gaping hole in my knowledge.

Sir Christopher Frayling, rector of the Royal College of ArtThe essence of Derrida is inter-linear analysis: that is, reading between the lines as well as on them; seeing what lies behind a text as well as what is commonly understood as its meaning.

AS Byatt, novelistDerrida examines how we construct meaning, the provisional way in which our constructions depend upon other constructions. He was an exciting person to read but had a bad effect on British critical writing. He wrote with immense ad hoc wit and had no interest in creating a system, but his followers did create a system and sought to deconstruct everything.

Ivan Massow, former chairman of the Institute of Contemporary ArtsWho? I don't know who you are talking about? I'm in a meeting with a group of City luminaries and none of them has heard of him. I can Google him for you if you are having difficulties.

Richard Boston, writerDeconstructionism is what, when I was at school, we called parsing. At Cambridge 10 years later we called it practical criticism. Then, another 10 years later, I became aware that this familiar pastime had a new name, deconstructionism. It's just taking things apart. I do, though, have to confess that I have not made a close study of Jackie Derrida.